Xudo wrote:Should I assume that term "wose" in Wesnoth have local and unique meaning?
This is important in translation. Should I use translation of canonical name "Ent" or other term, which is about human-like being related to forest?

If the translation of "Ent" is strictly referring to LotR ents, then yes, better to use some other word.

In appearance, the Woses were short, stumpy-bodied men, possibly related to the Púkel-men of ancient Rohan. They had disproportionate bodies and small, sunken eyes that glowed red when they were angry or suspicious.

Woses are not trees at all.
But description based on concept "woses are trees" is really great and well thought.
Should I assume that term "wose" in Wesnoth have local and unique meaning?
This is important in translation. Should I use translation of canonical name "Ent" or other term, which is about human-like being related to forest?

It seems like, for reasons I do not know, the LotR concept of Ents were instead decided to be named Woses. I feel like perhaps that's for the best, since like, orcs and elves have their names and concepts now deeply rooted in fantasy of all sorts, but the tree-people being named Ents are kind of exclusively LotR, and there is definitely an intent to just sort of genericize and better realize the somewhat higher fantasy concepts of Tolkien's work. Same with the Hobbits - it's basically a guarantee that if a similar race shows up in Wesnoth, they won't be named that, but rather Halflings as others have put forth.

Gyra_Solune wrote:
It seems like, for reasons I do not know, the LotR concept of Ents were instead decided to be named Woses. I feel like perhaps that's for the best, since like, orcs and elves have their names and concepts now deeply rooted in fantasy of all sorts, but the tree-people being named Ents are kind of exclusively LotR, and there is definitely an intent to just sort of genericize and better realize the somewhat higher fantasy concepts of Tolkien's work. Same with the Hobbits - it's basically a guarantee that if a similar race shows up in Wesnoth, they won't be named that, but rather Halflings as others have put forth.

LotR is not yet public domain, and it's very important to not get sued. Orcs, dwarves, elves, and trolls already existed and were named long before Tolkien came along, but (AFAIK) his estate holds claims to "ent" as used to describe a tree-like being.

It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.

johndh wrote:LotR is not yet public domain, and it's very important to not get sued. Orcs, dwarves, elves, and trolls already existed and were named long before Tolkien came along, but (AFAIK) his estate holds claims to "ent" as used to describe a tree-like being.

Orcs were never mentioned prior to Tolkien. Various authors and creators took the name, using it as if it were some ancient mythological legend, and formed Orcs that resembled Tolkien's but weren't. Same for Tolkien-esque elves: He later wished that he'd never called them Elves, as he later took the Elves we see in the Hobbit and merged them with his histories of the Eldar. Et c. Dwarves are nearer to their Germanic mythological forebearers, so there is some justification there.

Not many people used the name Ents, though.
It just so happens that those greedy

Spoiler:

ƒV<l‹∑P\5

who now own the licenses to use names like Ent, and who also attempted to cheat Tolkien's estate out of their royalties, are much more attentive now to their territoriality. Something like that.

I read someone remark that the hollywood production houses were as likely to steal from the authors as are the so–called pirates who distribute copies of the works. Moreso, because not all pirates do so for monetary gain.

johndh wrote:LotR is not yet public domain, and it's very important to not get sued. Orcs, dwarves, elves, and trolls already existed and were named long before Tolkien came along, but (AFAIK) his estate holds claims to "ent" as used to describe a tree-like being.

Orcs were never mentioned prior to Tolkien. Various authors and creators took the name, using it as if it were some ancient mythological legend, and formed Orcs that resembled Tolkien's but weren't. Same for Tolkien-esque elves: He later wished that he'd never called them Elves, as he later took the Elves we see in the Hobbit and merged them with his histories of the Eldar. Et c. Dwarves are nearer to their Germanic mythological forebearers, so there is some justification there.

Not many people used the name Ents, though.
It just so happens that those greedy

Spoiler:

ƒV<l‹∑P\5

who now own the licenses to use names like Ent, and who also attempted to cheat Tolkien's estate out of their royalties, are much more attentive now to their territoriality. Something like that.

I read someone remark that the hollywood production houses were as likely to steal from the authors as are the so–called pirates who distribute copies of the works. Moreso, because not all pirates do so for monetary gain.

Ahem. Anyways.

Not exactly, he probably adapted an old English word that stands for monster (Orcnèas) and already Romans used a latin word (Orcus), both very similar, in fact if you actualize the word it will become Orc, in my language many words are the same like in latin, but oftem they lost the last letters.
There is also an german word that refers to an Europen mythological creature, from the descriptions that I have read, this monster behaves and looks like an Orc, and in fact is name is used often in place or as a synonimous of Orc, and that word is Ork.
I saw them used even in an interchangable way, I also found some writings online, were both words were used to refer to the same creature.
In fact the word Ork is used in many fantasy writings in place of the word Orc, so if someone have some concerns, just use the word Orks instead of Orcs.
So it was actually used before, it was just written differently, like Dwarf, they change comnpletely in other languages, or even in the same language if you look in the old version of it.
After all languages keep changing during time.

Hmm. I'd read that an Orcnèas was an undead monster similar to a ghoul, and ideally what people ought to be using when they nowadays prefer the less applicable Zombie (which was never undead in the same way as that it needed previously slain corpse). That's why Tolkien used the word, because although the Orcs aren't undead, they are so corrupted and degenerate as to seem almost unliving. Samwise thought that they ate filth and drank poison, IIRC.

It looks like the the Ork was a fairy similar to the Dwarf.

But, you're right, I should've been clearer. It seems to me that DnD made the Orc a full and proper race which somewhat resembled Tolkien's Orcs but had very different origins. Those were the Orcs that have later been used as inspiration for other fantasy worlds.

What I was trying to say was that, so far as I see it, the concerns nowadays regarding recent, unestablished usages which resemble Tolkien's creations, ar receiving more attention and antagonism due to the greed from New Line et al and to reticence from Tolkien Estates Ltd — due to the many previous misuses that have occured recently. There was a big deal regarding unlicensed use of the LotR with online gambling, for example.

Older works have already established Eldar–like folk, with the name of Elves, so that it is more difficult for anyone to claim infringement. That's why, I think, Wesnoth's Elves, which don't resemble mythological elves so much as they do Tolkien's Elves, aren't encountering demands to change their name or nature.

So, the way I see it, Dwarf, Elf, and Orc, as Wesnoth uses them, are accepted staples of high fantasy. Ent is not so much; we could use Treant, if we wanted: It seems to me that Wizards Of The Coast are more concerned with their game mechanics than with their characters or names. Just look at Warcraft.

Or, we could call them Wosmacks.

p.s. I wasn't going for a dismissive or confrontational tone. Not sure if anyone reads that in what I wrote.